flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [FalconJX FlexJS] JQuery up and running, a nightmare but we now have 1.9 in AS
Date Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:10:29 GMT
> Fred, I think I tried it correctly, but am not getting the private
> function in the constructor. What setting are you using?

-js-output-type=FLEXJS

class Main {
private function start():void {
    // The code that will be called
}}

Frédéric THOMAS


----------------------------------------
> From: aharui@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX FlexJS] JQuery up and running, a nightmare but we now have 1.9
in AS
> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:29:28 +0000
>
> Fred, I think I tried it correctly, but am not getting the private
> function in the constructor. What setting are you using?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 6/25/15, 8:02 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ah ok. That’s probably a bug. Not sure why, but the emitters currently
>>> initialize private members in the constructor. We discussed on some
>>>other
>>> thread a while back that this shouldn’t be necessary except for
>>>non-scalar
>>> initializers, so probably we should try to change this someday.
>>
>>Initializing methods in the constructor via myPrivateMethod = function()
>>{) will make it private but public instance methods not initialized in
>>the constructor won't be able to access it, public methods which aim to
>>access private methods need also to be declared in the contructor (eg.
>>"this.myPublicMethod = function() {return myPrivateMethod())")
>>
>>But do we need to replicate the AS3 NS behaviour in JS (public, private,
>>protected, custom NS) ?
>>
>>Has it been already discussed ?
>>
>>I'm not sure, my first answer would be no as the the developer will
>>develop in AS3 but if the code to be tested is the JS, I would answer
>>yes, we must reproduce what AS3 promises, the public, protected, private
>>and custom NS for classes and instances.
>>
>>Thoughts ?
>>
>>Frédéric THOMAS
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>>> From: aharui@adobe.com
>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [FalconJX FlexJS] JQuery up and running, a nightmare but
>>>we now have 1.9 in AS
>>> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:37:30 +0000
>>>
>>> Ah ok. That’s probably a bug. Not sure why, but the emitters currently
>>> initialize private members in the constructor. We discussed on some
>>>other
>>> thread a while back that this shouldn’t be necessary except for
>>>non-scalar
>>> initializers, so probably we should try to change this someday.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 6/25/15, 5:30 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>That remains me, if I change my start() function to either public
or
>>>>>>private, the cross compiled one is Main.prototype.start = function()
>>>>>>hence it becomes public, only the @public / @private annotation
>>>>>>changes,
>>>>>>is that expected ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not sure I understand. What was it otherwise?
>>>>
>>>>Using inner construstor functions:
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------
>>>>- Public function
>>>>--------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>public class Main {
>>>> public function start():void {
>>>> HtmlContainer.load([JQUERY_SCRIPT], run);
>>>> }
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>/**
>>>> * @constructor
>>>> */
>>>>Main = function() {
>>>> /**
>>>> * @public
>>>> */
>>>> this.start = function() {
>>>> HtmlContainer.load([Main.JQUERY_SCRIPT], Main.run);
>>>> };
>>>>};
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------
>>>>- Private function
>>>>--------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>public class Main {
>>>> private function start():void {
>>>> HtmlContainer.load([Main.JQUERY_SCRIPT], run);
>>>> }
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>/**
>>>> * @constructor
>>>> */
>>>>Main = function() {
>>>> /**
>>>> * @private
>>>> */
>>>> start = function() {
>>>> HtmlContainer.load([Main.JQUERY_SCRIPT], Main.run);
>>>> };
>>>>};
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------
>>>>> From: aharui@adobe.com
>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [FalconJX FlexJS] JQuery up and running, a nightmare but
>>>>>we now have 1.9 in AS
>>>>> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 04:57:48 +0000
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/24/15, 6:43 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we wrote js we were not sure of naming conventions. Google
>>>>>>seems to like backing variables to end with dash but flex starts with
>>>>>>dash. Not sure what to do. I'm thinking we change to end with dash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Even though those 2 properties are public ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I took a closer look. There shouldn’t be _ on those properties.
>>>>> Keep in mind that there has been relatively little testing on this
>>>>>code.
>>>>> We get the examples to work and call it “done for now”.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That remains me, if I change my start() function to either public
or
>>>>>>private, the cross compiled one is Main.prototype.start = function()
>>>>>>hence it becomes public, only the @public / @private annotation
>>>>>>changes,
>>>>>>is that expected ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not sure I understand. What was it otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message